During the time Nationair had experienced financial difficulty and was filing for bankruptcy protection, Air Transat had publicly stated that they would take on any Flight Attendants working at Nationair in the event that they folded. As part of an agreement with several groups, interviews were arranged for ex-Nationair Flight Attendants at Air Transat.

During my interview I, as well as many others were interviewed by a former Nationair employee who seemed more interested in our union activities during the lockout than our abilities and/or experience as Flight Attendants.

Questions such as "what were your duties during the lockout?", "did you do anything besides picket?", "did you take any courses?", "you were locked out for 16 months and lost, how does that make you feel?", "would you go over your duty day?(violate your contract voluntarily)", and "we have a good working atmosphere here, how do you feel about that?" were asked of alot of Flight Attendants. Some of the questions were asked in a very adversarial manner. At this point, discussing Nationair (whose Labor Relations record is rather well known) and the lockout was the last thing I wanted to do in a job interview.

As President of the Local in Toronto, and member of the Negotiating, Scheduling, and Grievance Committees, the questions I received were numerous. All of the above and more.

I was not hired, though my qualifications were far superior to many of those who were. I smelt a rat. I felt that my participation in the union was being used against me in the recruiting process. So did several other former union officers and some members who had been very active in the union during the lockout. We managed to get the Canadian Union of Public Employees to help us file with the Canadian Labor Relations Board.

This is a Summary of the Canadian Labor Relations Board decision regarding our case against Air Transat

The Board received from certain flight attendants who used to work for Nolisair International Inc. (Nolisair) a complaint of unfair labour practice filed pursuant to sections 94(3)(a) and 96 of the Code.The complainants alleged that Air Transat illegally refused to hire them as flight attendants following the shutdown of Nationair, in the spring of 1993.They claimed that the employer, by questioning them about their opinions and past union activities during job interviews and by refusing to hiring them in that context, violated the code.

According to the complainants, a basic principle of interpretation and application of the Code in involved in this case, that is, is an employer allowed, during the selection process, to question candidates on past union activities and on their interpretation of the collective agreement and then use the answers given in assessing the candidates.

For its part, the employer submitted that the questions asked of the candidates on their past union activities and on their interpretation of a provision of the collective agreement were not per se illegal and that the answers given were not used in deciding to hire or not to hire them.
The Board determined that for an employer to take an interest in the candidates' past union activities during the selection process does not constitute per se a violation of the Code.Yet, there is no doubt that this approach could very well give rise to such a violation if the employer could not explain in a reasonable and clear manner the reasons for its decision not to hire a candidate who received that treatment. In this case, the Board concluded that the hiring process and the way it was applied in general do not a priori point to a breach of the right of assiciation protected by the Code. The evidence does not allow the Board to conclude that Air Transat systematically refused to hire union supporters nor that the candidates' past union activities constituted the reason for refusing to hire the majority of them, whose complaints it dismissed.

On the other hand, the Board concluded that the complaints of four complainants had merit, since the employer had not satisfied the Board, as required by section 98(4) of the Code,that the union activites and opinions of these complainants had not, even incidentally, motivated the employer's decision to hire them as flight attendants.

The Board ordered the employer to hire those complainants as flight attendants.